Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

Here is your explanation for how not drilling for oil allows a new supplier to jump in and dominate the market:

Originally Posted by chief31

Alright, I guess you insist that I pretend like you have no clue here...

The price of oil goes up, and it continues to go up, because the supply goes down with usage.

As the supply gets lower, and the value gets higher, as a result.... then what happens to a new supplier? He controls the market, because he has the supply.

It's not like this is some advanced economic lesson.

You knew this. Why did you make me explain it to you?

You are still not making sense, here. How is a "new supplier" going to come in and control the supply of oil when a) democrats won't allow increased drilling and b) huge conglomerates Like BP and Exxon-Mobil already have an overwhelming chunk of the market share? This new supplier would be faced with huge startup costs to drill for oil, and would not be able to take advantage of economies of scale to ship and refine his oil if he could even get permission to drill. There is no way he could sell oil for less than the big oil companies, even if he could get the same government subsidies that they do, because it would cost him more money to produce each barrel of oil. What incentive would gas stations have to switch from their current supplier to the new guy?

On the other hand, If we allow existing oil companies to increase drilling, the supply goes up and the cost comes down. These oil companies increase their market share because they have a greater per centage of the world's oil compared to OPEC and can sell it at a lower price. This in turn forces OPEC to lower their prices in an effort to maintain their market share.

[The stock market] is not a highly reliable indicator.... like the exception to the rule is?

It is not as reliable an indicator as real economic indicators like job growth, new housing construction, increased factory production, and the consumer price index.

The Stock market is highly speculative. Investors are buying because they think the economy will improve, not because it actually is. This makes sense because the economy can't get much worse than it is now. You get in when the economy is bad and you wait for it to improve so the value of your stock goes up.

But you want to use the stock market as a "reliable" indicator? Okay, let's do that:

Stocks plunged Friday after the government reported that hiring slowed sharply last month. The report added to investor fears that the U.S. economic recovery is faltering.

The losses in the market were widespread.

...

"The jobs numbers were a disappointment," said Phil Orlando, chief equity strategist at Federated Investors. He noted that there were several factors distorting the month's figures including unusually warm weather in the first three months of the year and an early Easter. (source: USA Today)

The banks screwed up. But it was no accident. Those "high risk" loans were purposely sold off at inflated values. They were lemons that the insurance holder, who sold them, specifically wanted to see fail, so that they would gain on both ends. Maximum sale price, and the federal insurance that they go to keep when they sabotaged their own customers, on both ends.

The Community Reinvestment Act had done well for decades, until de-regulation led to this kind of sabotage.

Here is what I will grant you on that... The vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagal was heavily bipartisan.

Democrats, the minority at the time, joined in for the lobby money, and to not be obstructionists. That's what you do when America's people make you the minority in Washington.

But they were just as foolish as anybody on this matter.

We make most laws for a good reason. Because, left to their own decisions, man have proven, without a doubt, over the course of man's entire history, that they will destroy each other.

We are in agreement that there is plenty of blame to go around with the housing bubble crash.

The bottom line is that people were buying houses that they couldn't afford with easy credit, sub-prime mortgages, and "interest only loans" that built up zero equity and had huge balloon payments where the balance of the loan would eventually have to be refinanced.

Add to that that many people were maxing out their credit cards (which helped stimulate the retail sector) and making only the minimum payments which barely covered the interest. Then they would "consolidate" their loans with a 2nd or third mortgage in an effort to lower their payments and interest rates. That's why the government forced credit card issuers to double their minimum monthly payments so at least some of the principal was getting paid off. But higher credit card payments (and gas prices) made it even harder for these people to make their mortgage payments.

People started using their debit cards more and foolishly spending on their credit cards less, but that had a negative effect on the economy as well. When people have less money to spend, whether that is because of higher gas prices, inflation, a tightening of available credit or higher taxes, the economy suffers.

Here is your explanation for how not drilling for oil allows a new supplier to jump in and dominate the market:

You are still not making sense, here. How is a "new supplier" going to come in and control the supply of oil when a) democrats won't allow increased drilling and b) huge conglomerates Like BP and Exxon-Mobil already have an overwhelming chunk of the market share? This new supplier would be faced with huge startup costs to drill for oil, and would not be able to take advantage of economies of scale to ship and refine his oil if he could even get permission to drill. There is no way he could sell oil for less than the big oil companies, even if he could get the same government subsidies that they do, because it would cost him more money to produce each barrel of oil. What incentive would gas stations have to switch from their current supplier to the new guy?

On the other hand, If we allow existing oil companies to increase drilling, the supply goes up and the cost comes down. These oil companies increase their market share because they have a greater per centage of the world's oil compared to OPEC and can sell it at a lower price. This in turn forces OPEC to lower their prices in an effort to maintain their market share.

It would be the same companies, getting oil from a new supply in The USA. AKA, increased drilling.

But, have you bothered to ask why Republicans have not moved on this, despite having the political advantage in Washington for the better half of the last thirty years?

Just like any other product, if the supply goes dim, the price goes up. And he holds the large supply has a large profit on his hands. If we were wasting our supply right now, then we would bot have that advantage later.

Just as increased drilling would drop prices today, the same would be true later, when the supply is less.

I, in no way, have suggested that I agree with doing this. But it seems perfectly logical, and no other explanation for why both parties are avoiding drilling makes any sense.

What bothers me most is if Romney gets in office, he's going to look like Reagan after Carter. UGH! Can you imagine some RINO like Romney being seen in the same light as Reagan?? Obama has done his best to destroy this country and poison the roots of the tree of liberty. All Romney is going to have to do when he gets in office is repeal Obamacare (assuming it doesn't get stuck down in 2 weeks), clip the EPA's nuts, and promote homeland drilling and oil production. Those 3 things by themselves will make this economy rebound like crazy!

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country... one is by they sword, the other is by debt- John Adams

Personally, I'd like to see the red states build up their constitutionally protected state militia, (which Obama has no authority over) and threaten a secession if he's re-elected.

What bothers me most is if Romney gets in office, he's going to look like Reagan after Carter. UGH! Can you imagine some RINO like Romney being seen in the same light as Reagan?? Obama has done his best to destroy this country and poison the roots of the tree of liberty. All Romney is going to have to do when he gets in office is repeal Obamacare (assuming it doesn't get stuck down in 2 weeks), clip the EPA's nuts, and promote homeland drilling and oil production. Those 3 things by themselves will make this economy rebound like crazy!

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country... one is by they sword, the other is by debt- John Adams

Personally, I'd like to see the red states build up their constitutionally protected state militia, (which Obama has no authority over) and threaten a secession if he's re-elected.

I can see Texas doing that; don't know if many other states would though. I've become quite jaded with the whole political process with zero faith in our government on either side of the isle. I'm conservative in nature but feel that there's nothing wrong with our government that getting rid of the politicians wouldn't fix. What I mean by politicians are those self serving, career Washington insiders who are out of touch with John/Jane Q. Public. Nothing epitomizes that particular stereotype more, in my mind, than the current Presidential Candidates.

I can see Texas doing that; don't know if many other states would though. I've become quite jaded with the whole political process with zero faith in our government on either side of the isle. I'm conservative in nature but feel that there's nothing wrong with our government that getting rid of the politicians wouldn't fix. What I mean by politicians are those self serving, career Washington insiders who are out of touch with John/Jane Q. Public. Nothing epitomizes that particular stereotype more, in my mind, than the current Presidential Candidates.

I think the biggest reason why the system has broken is because we essentially have 2 US Senates. They capped the number of US Reps and since then, the individual's voice has been greatly diminished due to the growth in population. There needs to be a revamp of the house of reps to allow more representation. I believe a massive addition of house seats and term limits would go a long way to improving this government. This isn't expansion of government... it's expansion of representation. This would put reps in their districts more than in D.C., which would then reduce lobbying. A system of call-in votes could be established through verification codes using the same system as nuclear launch.

There are ways to fix the problems... the issue is how to implement the solutions.

A Texas secession is definitely something I'd be interested in at least exploring and discussing. If Texas offered an invitation for neighboring states to come with, I'm sure they would... especially, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee would probably follow suit, which would require Florida to come along as well.

People say this could start a new civil war. I'm not so sure. The US gets most of its service men and women from southern states... ESPECIALLY Texas. Texas has the most military installations in the country. Your national breakdown of a war between the US and Texas could look like this:

Those are the lines by which states will have to make their decisions. That map shows where the military gets its highest concentration of recruits throughout the country broken down by region and state. If the US decides to try and prevent a secession, if there isn't an all out breakaway by service men/women from these states, there will be MAJOR fractures in the chain of command and execution, if not rebellion and revolt against commanding officers. You can't tell me these officers who believe in fighting FOR freedom and to protect THEIR families are going to suddenly turn on the ones they love and enlisted to protect just because Obama tells them to. That ain't gonna happen.

Texas won't be just Texas. You're looking at a MINIMUM of a four state secession and perhaps as many as 14. Texas will also align itself with Mexico who will probably be the first to recognize Texas' independence. Then, you will also see a massive migration from like-minded individuals who are living in non-secession states. Texas has the ability to stand on its own. If a larger fracture were to occur, the Texas and Florida economies would be more than enough to drive a southern nation.

Currently, 1-6 Texans believe secession is a viable alternative to what has been allowed to happen in the US. If this discussion became a mainstream topic seriously discussed at the dinner table every night, half, if not 3/4 of the Texas population could be in favor. Once Texas begins this discussion in a serious manner, EVERY state in the union is going to have a decision to make.

Fighting for independence is something entirely different than fighting to completely overtake a nation. Most of the houses in Texas posses MORE than 1 gun and the entire state could rise as an army if it needed to. This is true for most of the southern states who will likely align themselves with the Lone Star State.

What bothers me most is if Romney gets in office, he's going to look like Reagan after Carter. UGH! Can you imagine some RINO like Romney being seen in the same light as Reagan?? Obama has done his best to destroy this country and poison the roots of the tree of liberty. All Romney is going to have to do when he gets in office is repeal Obamacare (assuming it doesn't get stuck down in 2 weeks), clip the EPA's nuts, and promote homeland drilling and oil production. Those 3 things by themselves will make this economy rebound like crazy!

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country... one is by they sword, the other is by debt- John Adams

Personally, I'd like to see the red states build up their constitutionally protected state militia, (which Obama has no authority over) and threaten a secession if he's re-elected.

Ive been saying this for years. You want stimulus, give us the gas prices they are paying ib iran and the middle east. I read its .45 a gallon, you know what that would do.

.And i think missouri would also follow a texas secesiion, we live in a rural area. i say most house here have a small arsenal.

In reality, if Texas decided to break and southern states decided to follow, there's nothing D.C. could about it. The U.S. military is in the hands of southern men and as much as the hippies on the coastlines talk **** and threaten violence, there's no way a socialist north could threaten the south, let alone keep them from seceding. It truly doesn't matter whether the US laws "ALLOW" for a Texas secession. We already live in a country irreversibly divided along the lines of socialist/communist v. capitalist and that's devastating. But just because the gangrene of communism has already taken parts of the body, that doesn't mean we should just allow it to kill the whole country. Cut those limbs off and let's move forward. Let them drive the rest of their states into bankruptcy like California, Michigan, and Illinois and let's all just move forward and prosper under a true capitalist system.